GSW Model vs JAZZ Model

From tonight at least it seems pretty clear that the GSW model seemed to have worked pretty well:

- gamble a year and tank (which only really works in a year with a loaded draft class)
- give young players (Thompson, Jenkins) plenty of experience against good players (at the cost of W's)
- get a decent player from draft (Barnes)

This is in complete contrast to the Jazz's model which is:

- tanking? What's that?
- play vets big minutes to give us a chance to win the game
- play young players limited minutes VS subs
- compete for the playoffs no matter what (even in a loaded draft year, even at the expense of giving young guys experience)
- main aim seems to be assembling a team which sells tickets no matter what

The results?

- Our young guys look lost against decent competition or when called upon to play big minutes
- Our young guys don't seem to have any 'go to move' due to the limited minutes they received last year
- We could have picked up a decent player in the draft
- With that pick, we may be could have traded for Harden together with another player if we wanted to

I don't know.. those are my thoughts.. what do you guys think?

I don't really feel like arguing with anyone, just wanted a friendly discussion on this.

I disagree. The Jazz way is the only way to win championships. We have a great GM who has built a beautiful team that will start kicking but any day now. GS is getting lucky. Its impossible to be good after tanking and starting two rookies. The KOC way is the only way.

From tonight at least it seems pretty clear that the GSW model seemed to have worked pretty well:

- gamble a year and tank (which only really works in a year with a loaded draft class)
- give young players (Thompson, Jenkins) plenty of experience against good players (at the cost of W's)
- get a decent player from draft (Barnes)

This is in complete contrast to the Jazz's model which is:

- tanking? What's that?
- play vets big minutes to give us a chance to win the game
- play young players limited minutes VS subs
- compete for the playoffs no matter what (even in a loaded draft year, even at the expense of giving young guys experience)
- main aim seems to be assembling a team which sells tickets no matter what

The results?

- Our young guys look lost against decent competition or when called upon to play big minutes
- Our young guys don't seem to have any 'go to move' due to the limited minutes they received last year
- We could have picked up a decent player in the draft
- With that pick, we may be could have traded for Harden together with another player if we wanted to

I don't know.. those are my thoughts.. what do you guys think?

I don't really feel like arguing with anyone, just wanted a friendly discussion on this.

The Warriors have been terrible for about 17 of the last 20 years. The Jazz, on the other hand, have been decent or better about 17 out of 20 seasons. I'd say our model works better.

Very little would have been accomplished by tanking last season. We would likely have added one more wing to compete for scarce minutes with Hayward & Burks. I doubt that Jeremy Lamb was the main reason OKC decided to deal Harden to houston. To me, he looks like the #3 asset in that deal, behind Martin and the Toronto pick.

As for development time, I think in the grand scheme of things the extra 500 minutes Kanter or Favors could have gotten by virtue of our tanking last year is not a huge deal. As long as they're seeing the court enough to not get completely frustrated, I think they will reach their potential, whatever that is. At worst, playing Al & Paul might retard their growth by a month or two.

The Warriors have been terrible for about 17 of the last 20 years. The Jazz, on the other hand, have been decent or better about 17 out of 20 seasons. I'd say our model works better.

Very little would have been accomplished by tanking last season. We would likely have added one more wing to compete for scarce minutes with Hayward & Burks. I doubt that Jeremy Lamb was the main reason OKC decided to deal Harden to houston. To me, he looks like the #3 asset in that deal, behind Martin and the Toronto pick.

As for development time, I think in the grand scheme of things the extra 500 minutes Kanter or Favors could have gotten by virtue of our tanking last year is not a huge deal. As long as they're seeing the court enough to not get completely frustrated, I think they will reach their potential, whatever that is. At worst, playing Al & Paul might retard their growth by a month or two.

Yes that's true. But times have changed and you have to change with it. Even KOC would agree that draft picks are worth much more these days with the harder cap being placed on teams.

Plus don't forget that we struck gold with Stockton & Malone. That's now long gone. We need a system that doesn't always rely on picking up amazing talents in the high teens' in the draft.

Also last year's draft was loaded - can't we make an exception 1 year to take advantage of that? You have to be flexible IMO.

GS first got in a coach. They have had talent before and it never got them anywhere. This GS team wouldn't be different than any other GS team had they not obtained a coach. So getting a real coach into Utah should be priority #1.

Oh, and trading away black holes like Monta Ellis.

Addition by subtraction. Never underestimate how much better we'd be by trading away Big Al. The dude really hampers us in all aspects, chemistry, offensively, defensively, etc. Getting rid of Big Al and clearing up the logjam should be priority #2.

GS first got in a coach. They have had talent before and it never got them anywhere. This GS team wouldn't be different than any other GS team had they not obtained a coach. So getting a real coach into Utah should be priority #1.

Oh, and trading away black holes like Monta Ellis.

Addition by subtraction. Never underestimate how much better we'd be by trading away Big Al. The dude really hampers us in all aspects, chemistry, offensively, defensively, etc. Getting rid of Big Al and clearing up the logjam should be priority #2.

That's the thing though, I feel the management sees Big Al as giving us a sure 30+ wins season, which is what they needed commercially to sell tickets.

I really like how the Warriors blend their roster.
There is a mix of youth and vets starting.

I still think sending Sap to the second unit would help.
Big Al and Sap are painful to watch together, and I don't think Favors and Kanter are that good together right now

Yes I agree.

But what's saddening to me though is how Thompson was the 11th pick and Burks was the 12th pick last year. But you can tell Thompson was composed out there and he's up to the challenge because of all the experience he received last year. Burks on the other hand is out there running around like he's still auditioning for a draft spot.

Thompson had played 2,593 minutes (mostly against starters) while Burks had only played 1,073 (mostly against scrubs).

The Warriors have been terrible for about 17 of the last 20 years. The Jazz, on the other hand, have been decent or better about 17 out of 20 seasons. I'd say our model works better.

This is where I stopped reading. How relevant are the past 20 seasons? For the past two years we've had no Sloan and a dead Larry Miller. This franchise is in no way the same as twenty years ago, or 10 years ago, or even 4 years ago when Larry got sick. The only similarity is the franchise name. The Jazz kept consistency because it was good. You can't take mediocrity and assume the same result just because the only variable you've kept the same is 'consistency'.

Confirmation bias. The strategy you outline was a recipe for the Warriors playing badly for many years. Taking one year where they seem to have things together in the first third is selective perception.

Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell

Confirmation bias. The strategy you outline was a recipe for the Warriors playing badly for many years. Taking one year where they seem to have things together in the first third is selective perception.

Problem is basketball is played on a court and isn't subject to the alternative notions you are loosely suggesting. It's basketball. Also (and this one is a serious question), can one be guilty of being selective when the only reality is the one before us .. meaning there is no other data to choose from (directly, that is)?